Americans equally divided over Trump impeachment: Poll

[Carnal_Flower]

The Ds AREN'T amazing to people who want to lower taxes on the rich and stop abortion, etc.

Not everyone is smoking your Pepe pipe

LOL what a psychopath....at least she has principals, you're just a partisan tool.

If they (O, HRC and the D"s) had been so amazing don't you think we would have voted Hillary and D's in??

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Ds AREN'T amazing to people who want to lower taxes on the rich and stop abortion, etc.

Like I said, they did such a shit job we threw the current GOP and Trump the keys and told them to take the wheel.



Also they generally want to lower taxes on the consumer, not rich people.

D's just like to conflate consumers with corporations and rich people so they can keep their regressive gravy train running.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Trump supporters are the Zombie Apocalypse that's been predicted.

A waste of skin

 

[Carnal_Flower]

What I said doesn't prove your Pepe point in the least.

Like I said, they did such a shit job we threw the current GOP and Trump the keys and told them to take the wheel.

Also they generally want to lower taxes on the consumer, not rich people.

D's just like to conflate consumers with corporations and rich people so they can keep their regressive gravy train running.

 

[JackLuis]

I think many people forget that very few parties have held the Presidency for more than two terms, the American people seem to switch parties in the hope that 'the new guys' will not be the assholes the old guys were.

O'course the Dem's didn't help themselves by running a has been that had lost to a black man.

 

[Macdaddy23]

Trump isn't fit for the White House at all. He knows nothing on history, on government, still holds rallies which is stupid. Someone needs to grow some balls and impeach his damn ass.

 

[Hypoxia]

Trump isn't fit for the White House at all. He knows nothing on history, on government, still holds rallies which is stupid. Someone needs to grow some balls and impeach his damn ass.

When the Guppy Congress feels he's a danger to them, he's gone. Till then, bend over and smile.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Americans equally divided over Trump impeachment: Poll

I'm curious: What would be the legal basis for impeachment?

 

[sr71plt]

I'm curious: What would be the legal basis for impeachment?

Impeachment is a political process. It's based on votes, not legality. That's been pointed out several times here.

In Donald Trump's case, it's not going to matter. He is guilty of money laundering for foreign interests at the base, which is illegal, and of trying to cover it up. We can all wait for that conclusion, but it's inevitable. And it's illegal. Politically, he's treasonously guilty of colluding with a foreign power to undermine the U.S. political system. Again, that conclusion is inevitable. It doesn't really matter if you choose not to believe that.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Impeachment is a political process. It's based on votes, not legality. That's been pointed out several times here.

In Donald Trump's case, it's not going to matter. He is guilty of money laundering for foreign interests at the base, which is illegal, and of trying to cover it up. We can all wait for that conclusion, but it's inevitable. And it's illegal. Politically, he's treasonously guilty of colluding with a foreign power to undermine the U.S. political system. Again, that conclusion is inevitable. It doesn't really matter if you choose not to believe that.

Interesting. I'm curious still. As a hypothetical, let's say there is no firm evidence of any "high crime or misdemeanor" discovered. Would you still favor impeachment in defiance of the Constitution?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Impeachment is a political process. It's based on votes, not legality. That's been pointed out several times here.

In Donald Trump's case, it's not going to matter. He is guilty of money laundering for foreign interests at the base, which is illegal, and of trying to cover it up. We can all wait for that conclusion, but it's inevitable. And it's illegal. Politically, he's treasonously guilty of colluding with a foreign power to undermine the U.S. political system. Again, that conclusion is inevitable. It doesn't really matter if you choose not to believe that.

I have read and heard about Trump and money laundering, but didn't that happen long ago, and hasn't it already been dealt with? If it has nothing to do with Trump as POTUS, how can it be a "high crime and misdemeanor?"

 

[sr71plt]

Interesting. I'm curious still. As a hypothetical, let's say there is no firm evidence of any "high crime or misdemeanor" discovered. Would you still favor impeachment in defiance of the Constitution?

In defiance of what in the Constitution? What in the Constitution counters the impeachment process set up by the Constitution? If impeachment occurs, the language of the Constitution will be included to justify it--with justification being based on having the votes to pass it.

In Trump's case, they already have enough to justify it to themselves on the basis of obstruction of justice if they choose to do so by mustering the needed votes.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

In defiance of what in the Constitution? What in the Constitution counters the impeachment process set up by the Constitution? If impeachment occurs, the language of the Constitution will be included to justify it--with justification being based on having the votes to pass it.

In Trump's case, they already have enough to justify it to themselves on the basis of obstruction of justice if they choose to do so by mustering the needed votes.

Article I, sec IV of the Constitution provides: "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (emphasis added).

Let's put Trump aside for a moment. Again, as a hypothetical: If there was a President you simply did not like for his or her policies and legal actions, and there was no evidence that he or she had committed "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," would you consider removal from office through the impeachment process appropriate as a political maneuver to get rid of him or her?

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not interested in your mealy-mouthing. It's the specific question of impeaching Donald Trump that's here now, not some hypothetical. And it doesn't matter whether you or I want Donald Trump impeached or thinks he will be. What is obvious is that Donald Trump thinks he might be impeached--and obviously sees there are grounds for it or he wouldn't be trying so hard to head it off.

You don't have to be a genius to see that that man himself is revealing that he's as guilty as a skunk of enough to toss him out.

And, no, I don't think it's inevitable that he'll be impeached. Those controlling whether he is or not are nearly as despicable and self-serving as he is.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

I'm not interested in your mealy-mouthing. And it doesn't matter whether you or I want Donald Trump impeached or thinks he will be. What is obvious is that Donald Trump thinks he might be impeached--and obviously sees there are grounds for it or he wouldn't be trying so hard to head it off.

I'm sorry. I did not think I was being "mealy-mouthed." I'm honestly curious about your opinion. Should "the Rule of Law" matter, or should all that matters be having enough votes, even if it is not constitutional?

I promise I will not condemn either position. I'm just curious what yours is. It helps to put the rest in context.

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's put Trump aside for a moment. Again, as a hypothetical: If there was a President you simply did not like for his or her policies and legal actions, and there was no evidence that he or she had committed "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," would you consider removal from office through the impeachment process appropriate as a political maneuver to get rid of him or her?

It's not whether citizens "simply did not like for his or her policies and legal actions". It's whether Congress really wants to get rid of a prez, probably because they see the prez as a super-threat to their status. If they want him gone, they'll find grounds.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the rule of law should matter. It obviously doesn't to Donald Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress. So, I think they should be tossed out.

What I think (or you think) doesn't affect the actual process of impeachment.

And you are only pursuing this to be mealy-mouthed.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

I think the rule of law should matter. It obviously doesn't to Donald Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress. So, I think they should be tossed out.

What I think (or you think) doesn't affect the actual process of impeachment.

And you are only pursuing this to be mealy-mouthed.

Really. How? I think I have been direct and respectful.

Please, if I am somehow being offensive in the way I phrase things, let me know. I try to treat everyone with at least the amount of respect they deserve.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

It's not whether citizens "simply did not like for his or her policies and legal actions". It's whether Congress really wants to get rid of a prez, probably because they see the prez as a super-threat to their status. If they want him gone, they'll find grounds.

Well, "treason" and "bribery" are well defined under the law. Similarly, "high crimes," i.e., felonies and :misdemeanors have specific legal meanings. What if there is simply no evidence of such a thing?

I guess I'm asking you, as well as anyone else who wishes to comment, the same question I posed earlier:

If there was a President you simply did not like for his or her policies and clearly legal executive actions, and there was no evidence that he or she had committed "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," would you consider removal from office through the impeachment process appropriate as a political maneuver to get rid of him or her?​

 

[sr71plt]

You're being transparent. And purposely dense.

And I responded to your questions directly. Sorry if you didn't like the responses (Well, no I'm not.) But then I don't really care what you think about it and feel no need to badger you into changing your mind about anything. You can be as dense as you like.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

You're being transparent. And purposely dense.

Now I'm really confused.

I'm just trying to get a gauge on how people feel about the Rule of Law vs. the Rule of the Majority.

Why do you assign some devious purpose to this?

And I responded to your questions directly. Sorry if you didn't like the responses (Well, no I'm not.) But then I don't really care what you think about it and feel no need to badger you into changing your mind about anything. You can be as dense as you like.

Right. I saw your answer and, as I said before, I won't offer any criticism.

Now I'm just trying to figure out why you thought I was being disingenuous in asking it.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, the Boxlicker approach of luring them down a rabbit hole of pretending not to understand them.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Ah, the Boxlicker approach of luring them down a rabbit hole of pretending not to understand them.

You're truly reading more intent into my questions than is there. I'm just trying to understand people's points of view.

(And I honestly have no idea to what "Boxlicker" refers or how it has anything to do with this.)

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

It's fascinating the way people can see the same events and just have totally different opinions about what's happening. I have a genuine question for the pro-Trump people on here. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is just about the most disastrous president in history and every day presents another chapter of unprecedented calamity, ineptness and disgrace. Is that how things seemed to you when Obama was in office?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

It's fascinating the way people can see the same events and just have totally different opinions about what's happening. I have a genuine question for the pro-Trump people on here. As far as I'm concerned, Trump is just about the most disastrous president in history and every day presents another chapter of unprecedented calamity, ineptness and disgrace. Is that how things seemed to you when Obama was in office?

I'm not particularly pro-Trump, nor was I particularly pro-Obama.

(I guess you'd call me a "constitutionalist." Most important to me are the various personal, civil, and property rights recognized by the Constitution. Thus, I end up agreeing with some things Democrats do, some things Republicans do, and disagreeing with a lot that both parties do.)

I'm curious (honestly): can you identify for us what Trump has done so far that you consider "disastrous" or a "calamity"?

I think that will help people better respond to your question.